Political Disputes Among the Liberals

Published:Put PravdyNo. 25, March 1, 1914.

      Published according to the text inPut Pravdy.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages129-131.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

PutPravdy(No. 18) of last Friday published an
article entitled “Mr. Struve on the Need to ‘Reform the
		       Government’”[1]in which we informed our readers of the appraisal of the political
situation in Russia given by one of the most outspoken and consistent of
the counter-revolutionary liberals.

Thenext dayRechpublished-a tremendously long “doctrinal”
article by Mr. Milyukov “against” Mr. Struve in connection with this very
article on the need to reform the government. It will be useful to dwell on
this dispute between the two liberals, firstly, because vital issues of
Russian politics Are involved, and secondly, because it reveals thetwo
political typesof leading bourgeois. And they are types that will
have important political significance in Russia for a long time to come,
for decades, types that are of similar significance in all capitalist
countries. In its own interests, the proletariat must know these types.

Duringthe past few years Mr. Struve has set forth his views most fully
and clearly in the bookVekhi.[2]These are the views of a counter-revolutionary
liberal, an adherent of religion (and of philosophical idealism as the
truest and most “scholarly” road to it), and an opponent of
democracy. They are the clear, distinctly expressed views, not of an
individual, but of a class, for as a matter of fact theentire
massof the Octobrist andCadetbourgeoisie in Russia during
1907–14 subscribed to them.

Thecrux of the matter is that the Octobrist and Cadet bourgeoisie have
swung to the right, away from democracy. The crux of the matter is that
this bourgeoisie is more afraidof the people than of reaction. The crux of the matter is that this
rightward swing has not been accidental, but has been caused by the class
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The crux of the
matter is that Struve and then Maklakov have told the truth about their
class and their party more frankly than other Cadets have.

Andthis home truth has been very unpalatable to the diplomats of the
Cadet Party (headed by Mr. Milyukov), who deem it necessary to flirt with
democracy in the belief that the role of this democracy is not quite played
out, and that the bourgeoisie may perhaps have to live and act in a milieu
created, not only by the Purishkeviches but—God forbid—by the
democracy, by the “mob”, by the “street”, by the workers.

Whiletaking the same line as Mr. Struve and Mr. Maklakov, Mr. Milyukov
tries to cover it up, show himself off before the public, fool democracy
and keep it in leading strings. That is why Mr. Milyukovpretendsthat he disagrees withVekhi, that he disagrees with Struve, and
that he is refuting Maklakov, whenas a matter of facthe is
merely teaching Struve and Maklakov how to conceal their thoughts more
cunningly.

Thegist of Mr. Milyukov’s long article against Struve is his
accusation that Struve is “hopelessly muddled”.

Hotand strong, is it not?

Whereis the muddle? It is in Struve’s holding the “optimistic”
belief that the government can be reformed, while at the same time saying
that it is learning no lessons from the “upheavals” and is making them
inevitable. The way out, according to Mr. Struve, is either “unrest”, or
the reform of government. As for the first way out, Mr. Struve does not
want to “effectively work” for it or even “wish” it.

Mr.Struveis indeed muddled, but thenso is
Mr. Milyukov—completely, absolutely muddled, for neither can the
Constitutional-Democratic Party—of which Milyukov is the
leader—“wish” the first way out or “effectively work” for it.

Thisis proved, not by words (those who in politics judge men and
parties by their words are foolish), but by theirdeeds, i.e., bythe entire historyof the Constitutional-Democratic Party from
1905 to 1914, for almost a decade.

TheConstitutional-Democratic Party is more afraid of siding with the
workers (on questions of the minimum programme, of course) than of being
dependent on the Purishkeviches.

Thisapplies to the entire party, to the entire Cadet and Octobrist
bourgeoisie. And Milyukov simply makes himself ridiculous when he tries to
lay the blame for this on Struve alone.

Inall countries the experience of history shows that a bourgeoisie
which desires progress vacillates between siding with the workers and being
dependent on the Purishkeviches. In all countries—and the more civilised
amid free the country, the more marked this is—we see two types of
bourgeois politicians. One type openly leans towards religion, towards the
Purishkeviches, towards a forthright struggle against democracy, and tries
to build imp consistent theoretical evidence to support this tendency. The
other type specialises incovering upthis very same tendency byflirtingwith democracy.

Thereare diplomatic Milyukovs everywhere, and the workers must learn
to detect the cloven hoof at once.

[1]Seepp. 114–16 of this volume—Ed.

[2]SeeNote 71.